On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 12:50:17PM +0200, Jens Ritter wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I know this has come up before, but it's not truly resolved, so I'll ask
> > again.
> >
> > Why is Debian able to distribute software that uses patented LZW and RSA
> > algorithms from
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 02:50:24PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Aw com'on. It's easy enough to make the non-free document a separate
> package in non-free from the rest of the documentation and binaries.
Easy enough? I'll have to split the sources, too. I have a set of
packages set up like this
Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I know this has come up before, but it's not truly resolved, so I'll ask
> again.
>
> Why is Debian able to distribute software that uses patented LZW and RSA
> algorithms from non-free, but unable to distribute mp3 encoders in the same
> fashion?
B
[ >>> Please don't Cc me when replying to the list <<< ]
Hi,
I'm planning to take over the SNNS packages from debian-qa which has
been moved to non-free due to bug #6968 in 1997. This bug report seems
to have vanished from the archives. I'm cc'ing this to Karl Sacket,
who did the move and Martin
We have a lot of good fights to fight, but freeness of actual license text
isn't one of them. If someone thinks that is inconsistent, we can always
answer them with that famous Emerson quote "A foolish consistency is the
hobgoblin of small minds".
Thank
Bruce
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 01:17:28PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Licenses cannot be themselves free and still mean anything. They're legal
> > documents and as such need to be unchanging. The correct solution is to
> > let it be.
>
> [ Playing devils advocate for a minute.. ]
>
> But wouldn't the
6 matches
Mail list logo
